“Secured Investment Contracts: Legally Obligated 181% Gains” Stansberry

Phew, just when you think things are slowing down for the summer … out comes a new concept in Gumshoe teaserdom. Porter Stansberry’s folks are launching a new service, called True Income, which invests in something a little bit different … something that they’re teasing as “finally, a safe alternative to stocks!”

The service is just coming out of beta and has been around for a few months, but this is the first time I’ve seen it sold — they say the price is $2,400, but that for you special folks they’re offering it half off, only $1,200.

So what is it?

Here’s the first part of the letter, just to give you a little taste of what they’re selling today:

“What if I told you there’s an investment that could pay you 181% gains over the next 12 months…

“And that this money is SECURED by a legal contract…

“Would you be interested?

‘Well, how about if I told that your 181% gain is required BY LAW to be delivered on this EXACT date: June 15, 2009.

“And that in addition to a 181% gain, you’d also be legally entitled to collect 3 interest payments over that same period, bringing your total return to 227%…

“…Turning every $10,000 invested into $32,700, with almost 100% certainty.

“Still interested?

“Well, before I go any further, I should warn you: After reading this, you may never want to buy stocks, EVER again.

“That’s because this unique opportunity has nothing to do with the stock market… government bonds… mutual funds… or options.

“Instead, it’s something we call a “Secured Investment Contract.”

Good God, I’ve been reading these things for years with a skeptical eye, and I still am almost ready to throw some money at them. That sounds brilliant! 100% certainty? Woohoo!

But there’s a catch … isn’t there?

Let’s look and see.

“Like stocks, “Secured Investment Contracts” are offered by U.S. corporations. It’s a way for them to raise money from the public, and give people a share of their profits.”

And the one they mention in the teaser — the one that’s legally obligated to give you a 181% gain by next year — they disclose as being a “secured investment contract” offered by a company called Vertis, an advertising firm (actually, mostly a company that does advertising inserts and direct mail).

So what is going on here?

As you might imagine, “Secured Investment Contracts” are just corporate bonds. You’ll also see them called debt, or notes, or sometimes convertible bonds, and they have all kinds of complex differentiations among them.

It’s true that a bond is a legal agreement between a company and its lenders (the bondholders) — you give them the money, and in return you hold the bond, and you get the right to receive the coupon interest payments. Those interest payments are set when the bond is first sold (when the money is first borrowed), so you’ll usually see a bond described by the coupon rate and the expiration date, though since they’re traded after being issued the actual current yield on the bond is probably different than the original coupon rate. On the expiration date, the bondholder has the right to have the full principal returned to him (or her), and the term of the bond could be anything — it might be a short-term six-month bond, or a 30 or 40 year bond, or anything inbetween.

Corporate bonds work just like US Treasury bonds, though they are not usually sold at auction to set the initial rate (that’s usually done in conjunction with investment bankers who help to figure out what people will be wiling to pay, and then the bonds are openly traded to set the current price, just like stocks). The major difference between Treasury bonds and corporate bonds, aside from technicalities and specifics that are unique to both, is that the guarantor of Treasury bonds is the US government, whereas the guarantor of corporate bonds is the corporation itself.

So, that’s why people say Treasury bonds are “risk free” — the US Government has a nearly unlimited ability to raise money because they can tax the wealthiest populace in the world to get cash when needed, so people are always willing to lend the US more money. When they get more nervous about the US economy, or they believe that inflation will become a problem, then in theory the interest rate they demand for lending money to the government should go up (and therefore, the value of existing bonds that are traded on the open market should go down), but that’s balanced by the fact that people assume that this is the most rock-solid investment in the world, in terms of a guarantee not to lose your principal, so in practice Treasury bonds often seem stupidly expensive because of that guaranteed safety net. Current treasury bonds at many maturities, for example, yield less than the current inflation rate — so they’re actually losing money, which means a bet on buying those bonds now is a bet that inflation will get better, or it’s just a way to hide in the corner without losing too much money and wait for the storm to blow over (thanks to the coupon payments, a bond at least loses less money to inflation than does that pile of $20 bills stuffed in your mattress).

Corporate bonds, on the other hand, are decidedly not risk free. The example they give in this ad, for Vertis, which is an advertising and direct marketing firm in Maryland (who knows, maybe they package and mail some of the print ad letters that Stansberry uses, too), is an interesting one to look at. That’s because Vertis is in the process of going bankrupt — they’re getting ready to merge with another company, erase the current notes (those are the bonds — all of which mature next summer), and give the note holders new notes or perhaps equity in the new company — they’re not actually recommending that you buy these, so I didn’t read the agreements and the reorganization documents very closely.

This is almost always what happens in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization for a public company, by the way — the bondholders end up owning the company, for good or ill. That’s how Marty Whitman and so many other prescient investors made a bundle on Kmart, they bought the debt when the company was collapsing, then when the stock value went to zero and the bankruptcy courts helped them reorganize, the bondholders ended up owning the equity in the new Kmart, which then had no debt but a valuable portfolio of retail real estate … and then they merged with Sears, and the magic continued for awhile, until the merry go round stopped a year or two ago and the stockholders again realized that there’s only so much you can do to squeeze out profits if you are unable to run a profitable store that customers like.

But that’s beside the point. The point is, if you hold the bonds of a company you are a lender to that company. If the company is paying you a high interest rate — in this case the coupon rate for the Vertis notes are in the range of 9-14% (though the actual current yield is much higher) — that means the company must, by inference, be a challenging credit risk. And that’s if the notes are trading at par value ($100 or $1,000 or whatever the initial increment of offering for the note was — the principal of the loan, in effect).

In the case of Vertis, I assume the notes were trading at a dramatic discount to the par value, something in the order of 65%, because that’s the only way you can get to the 181% gain teased. If a bond is coming due next year, and the par value of the bond is $100 but the company is in trouble and the bond is only trading at $50, you are technically “guaranteed” that you’ll get $100 for the bond next year and therefore get a 100% return. But if people really believed that the company was able to stand behind the guarantee, of course, it wouldn’t be trading for $50. It’s possible that your advisor thinks he has better information to pick out the gems among the rubble in cases like this, but do note that fixed income investors are not stupid — if there was a good chance the bond would return it’s principal, it would be trading much closer to the principal value.

The ad says,

“If you buy Vertis Inc.’s stock, you have absolutely no idea what’s going to happen to your money over the next 12 months. Maybe it’ll go up. Maybe it’ll go down. It’s impossible for anyone to say with any real accuracy. There are just too many variables. But, on April 16, 2008, Vertis offered a “Secured Investment Contract” with the following scheduled payout:

Payment date: June 15, 2009

Scheduled Return: 227%

Now, that’s not precisely true — if you buy stock in a company that’s about to go bankrupt, in most cases you should know what you’re going to get: Nothing. Sometimes, as for example with the Calpine restructuring a few months back, the common shareholders end up with a small fraction of the pre-bankruptcy share price in new stock, but more often companies that go bankrupt are so hugely indebted that once the bondholders get their share of satisfaction there’s nothing left for common shareholders (and sometimes, not much left for some of the holders of junior debt)

This is a bad example for investing in corporate bonds — it’s a complicated restructuring, with notes swapped out for other notes to extend loans, and with a merger mixed in along with the bankruptcy filing. If you want to try to understand it for yourself, knock yourself out — the SEC filings are here, and the company website is here.

The other example given in the ad that caught my eye is Abitibi Consolidated, which I guess is a subsidiary of the relatively new AbitibiBowater (Which, back when it was plain old Abitibi, was teased by a different Stansberry newsletter, Extreme Value, as a value play based on its timber holdings).

Here’s what they said about this one:

“Since the beginning of the year, Abitibi’s share price has zigzagged between $25 and $9. If you buy the company’s stock today, you might do well. Or the shares could drop in value. Again, it’s simply impossible to predict.

“But on March 13, 2008, the company offered a ‘Secured Investment Contract’ agreeing to pay investors:

“Payment date: April 1, 2008

“Scheduled Return: 57%

“If you took advantage of Abitibi’s offer on March 13th, the company was OBLIGATED to pay you exactly 19 days later, on April 1st. Your exact payment: 57%.”

What they don’t tell you is that Abitibi’s debt was downgraded by Fitch and the other ratings agencyes to CCC and the equivalent — which is really, really low — and that Fitch believed that this 57% payout actually represented a partial default, because the company essentially made a partial cash payment to bondholders and gave them a new bond, with an expiration date further out in the future. The bonds had been trading at a steep discount to their par value, and Abitibi was in no position to pay back the principal in full, so anyone who bought those bonds years ago at the full stated value probably got a bit hosed.

Again, I haven’t dug very deeply into either of these — they are used as examples because they have impressive sounding yields and returns due to specific company restructurings that are complex and potentially dangerous, I don’t know if this is the kind of investment they’re going to seek out for this new True Income service, or if they’ll pick safer bonds and these are just the fiery examples they use to get your attention with returns of 57% or 181%.

I don’t generally invest in individual corporate bonds, and I’m not an expert on this area, so please take my comments with a grain of salt — it’s my honest opinion and assessment, but it might not be entirely correct.

On the other hand, if you’re someone who has any trouble at all reading through an SEC filing like a 10K and understanding it, then you might find a typical bond agreement to be nearly incomprehensible gibberish. And you wouldn’t lend someone money without reading and understanding the agreement, would you?

Perhaps Stansberry and his folks are breaking new ground here — there aren’t many big newsletters for individual investors that focus on bonds, and fewer still that focus on corporate bonds. They’re a little more complicated to buy, and the market is much less transparent (even though it’s huge — it still works mostly through intermediaries, at least for small investors, with challenges to getting a fair price or a “live” price quote). So maybe having a trusted adviser would open this market to more people … and perhaps Porter’s folks will be those trusted advisers for you.

But remember — it may be “secured” and it may come with a “legal agreement,” but if someone has to pay a 15-20% interest rate (or worse, 40% or more) just to borrow money to expand or operate their business, there’s a good reason somewhere in there — they’re maybe having trouble making a profit, they’re in a competitive business that investors don’t like and can’t raise equity capital, they’ve already got buckets and buckets of debt on their books and have trouble paying the coupon … it could be a lot of things, and sometimes when you’re holding a junk bond like these, the company ends up going bankrupt and you have to start caring a lot about whether you own the first lien notes, or the third lien subordinate notes, or what have you … and if it’s really bad, it’s certainly possible (likely, even) that many of the bondholders will get back substantially less than their principal.

So … it’s a complex market, but these high yield corporate bonds do exist, and they are “legally obligated” to repay your principal and make coupon payments through the term of the bond — but “legally obligated” is different than “guaranteed”, thanks to the bankruptcy process, a process that tends not to be a stranger to companies that are borrowing money at 15 or 20%.

Personally, in this arena I’d be much, much more comfortable hiring a mutual fund manager to deal with bonds for me. There are good high yield bond funds and closed end funds that have good performance — Vanguard (just an example, not a recommendation) has a High Yield Bond fund for corporate debt that yields about 8.5% currently, and I would assume they’re awfully conservative — that this is a lot different than taking a flier on a single bond that might double in two years.

As an alternative, there are also a multitude of companies that do this kind of lending and effectively manage portfolios for their shareholders — Business Development Companies like Allied Capital, American Capital Strategies, Apollo, PennantPark, and several others are probably the most well-known … they lend to mid-size companies and often get interest rates of 15% or so for their riskier debt, and in turn borrow money themselves to lever up a bit and pay high dividends to shareholders, so you get exposure to a large crop of somewhat risky debt, which hopefully brings down the risks through diversification. Not quite the same as investing in high yield corporate bonds directly, but certainly easier for many individuals.

Of course, this is not to claim that common stocks are safer than corporate bonds, whether investment grade bonds or high yield junk corporates — if you want to own a company that’s in financial distress, you might well be better off with the debt than with the stock, since the bondholders will end up getting something out of any potential bankruptcy reorganization but the stockholders often get nothing. But then again, if a company is in financial distress, you don’t have to buy either the stock or the debt, you can just look for a better company … and maybe sleep a little better.

The ad goes on to say that there are a few key things to know about these “secured investment contracts” — that they have scheduled payments, year after year, that don’t change; that they don’t plummet like stocks can; that they will pay you even during a corporate crisis; and that they can “safely earn 100% or more.”

All true, I suppose, though you could certainly argue the “safely” part, and argue their promised timeframe of doubling that money maybe in one year, or in 2-4 years. And sometimes they do plummet, if it looks like the company is in big trouble … though if they don’t go into or near bankruptcy or renegotiate those bonds with most owners, they will still be obligated to pay out that principal in the end.

And the “scheduled payments, year over year” is both a good and a bad thing — corporate bonds almost never have adjustable payouts, they have a steady coupon yield over that entire life. This is much different than owning a stock — if you own a dividend-paying stock with a growing business, there’s every chance that in a few years the effective dividend rate you’re getting on the stock (relative to your initial investment) could be higher than you would have gotten from the bond, and the interest they pay you on the bond won’t ever go up with inflation the way many dividends do, over time. Bonds can also show capital gains, if the debt rating improves and later investors are more willing to lend to them at a lower interest rate, then you’ll be able to sell the bond for more than you paid … but generally there’s a ceiling on that, too, since the coupon rate will almost never get lower than safe investments like treasuries.

Finally, they also make this seem a little bit secret by saying that any broker can buy and sell these “contracts” for you, but that you need a hard-to-find 9-digit code. This “secret” 9 digit code is the CUSIP code, which is an identifier for individual bond offerings (and stocks) that are traded over the counter just like a ticker is an identifier for publicly traded stocks on an exchange.

Psst … I’ll let you in on the secret!

You can find the CUSIP code in many ways, it’s not intentionally kept secret — some companies list the codes of their debt on their website, or in their SEC filings, but I think the easiest to use and most useful database of corporate debt offerings is from FINRA — and it’s free, though the quotes are delayed just like free stock quotes.

You can find debt offerings by the company’s ticker quite easily in FINRA’s bond center (as well as government and municipal bond info, though that’s a whole ‘nother beast) … for AbitibiBowater, for example, this is the listing of their various bond offerings — it will tell you the coupon rate, the date of maturity, whether or not it’s callable or convertible (callable means the company can force you to sell it back to them, convertible means it can be converted to common stock at a set ratio or price), and the rating that the debt has been given by the ratings agencies (A is rock solid, B less so, and C is junk, broadly speaking, if you trust Moody’s and Fitch and S&P — but there are a lot of gradations like Aaa or CCC or CCC+ or Caa2, unfortunately no ABBA as far as I know) … and right there are the top of each individual entry you’ll see the CUSIP code, should you wish to tell your broker to try to buy it for you. You’d want to do some other research first, of course, such as figuring out why the company’s debt is trading at a 30% discount to redemption value and lenders are demanding 20% interest coupon payments to hold the bonds (those are just examples) — not too different from researching a company, though it’s foreign for many individual investors.

For this service, Stansberry and Associates has recruited a guy who they say is an expert in corporate bonds, which I don’t doubt (though of course, he has no public track record for you to evaluate), and I guess they’ve done well with the beta service. They will be releasing a monthly newsletter issue with one corporate bond recommendation, along with the CUSIP code and, I assume, the buying instructions about what price you should be willing to pay, and probably some analysis of the company — probably not too different than a standard stock newsletter. They say they’ve got three of these “secured investment contracts” (corporate bonds, if you want to be a square about it) that you can buy right now …

“They include a newspaper company you’ve almost certainly heard of… a popular drugstore chain… and a large construction company.

“If you’re interested, Mike will send you these three 9-digit Codes within the next 30 minutes. All you have to do is follow his step-by-step instructions and relay these Codes to your broker.

“Your scheduled returns should be 117%, 92%, and 69% within the next few years. Not only that, you’ll be set to receive 15 separate interest checks from these companies over the next 2 years, while you wait for your final payout.”

So … I would assume that the drugstore corporate bonds are probably from Rite Aid, since they’re in much more trouble than the other “popular” drugstore chains and some people think they’ll end up going down the drain … and times are tough for a lot of construction companies now if they have any exposure to residential building (as opposed to the infrastructure engineering companies), so it wouldn’t be shocking if they had to pay a lot of interest to borrow money, or if investors demanded a high coupon rate to lend them money … and most newspaper companies are choked with debt and in some danger of having trouble just paying their debt service, so certainly the returns on corporate bonds of many newspaper companies, including the highly leveraged ones, like Tribune Co., will be great if the companies stay afloat and keep paying their coupons.

Remember that some of these companies are also the fallout of the private equity frenzy, they were taken private with enormous amounts of borrowed money, and that debt is still floating around with pretty high coupons for many companies, whether the shares are publicly traded again or not — the bondholders supply the leverage in a leveraged buyout, and if the debt is big enough it can certainly dwarf the company’s assets, especially if the assets and the business are depreciating. Tribune co., for example, last I checked had a market cap of about $2 billion, but an enterprise value (meaning, you add in the net debt because that’s what it would really cost to buy the company) of about $14 billion … so lots of companies have fairly dramatic leverage like this, which is why common stock holders are scared of what would happen to them in bankruptcy proceedings, since it’s not really accurate to say that stockholders “own” the company if the bond holders have that much claim to it … and why lenders are worried about their ability to pay the debt service (the interest rate or bond coupon) on all of that money they borrowed.

So, I won’t try to figure out just from the expected payout rate which of these corporate bonds they might be — there are so many variations that it’s unlikely I’d be right and, as I hope I’ve made clear, I’m far from an expert on corporate debt.

But if you’re interested in this side of investing, where upside is potentially good with distressed companies (but also limited, since bonds don’t often trade at a huge premium to their value at maturity), please take some time to look at the bond agreements, understand the ratings agency ratings, and know that a “secured investment contract” does not mean that you get free money without taking risks. If this advisor turns out to be someone who can take a lot of the risk away while investing in high yield individual corporate bonds, well then more power to him, but you’ll still be better off understanding the process and the investments before you pay anyone to choose them for you.

The only bonds I personally hold individually are Treasury Inflation Protected Bonds (TIPS), and I hold precious few of those just as a small inflation-fighting hedge against a portfolio that is 95% stocks. In general, I’d rather own a company than lend it money. I expect some of you are probably more interested than I in this area — and those who are primarily income focused can often do quite well with a portfolio of corporate bonds (though it might more typically be bonds for rock-solid companies like Johnson & Johnson, 3M or the like than for CCC rated or highly volatile junk debt). Feel free to share.

The author will always disclose any direct long or short equity, debt or option position in any stocks written about as of the day of publication, and will not trade in any stocks mentioned for three days (72 hours) after publication. Full disclaimer is at the bottom of the page.

Related Articles:

Secret Code: 925335AD3 (More on Secured Investment Contracts)

“Protected Certificates: Mandated Gains, Guaranteed” — True Income

Get your “Scheduled Distribution” Now — Better than Stocks!

Be “Dumb and Rich with TD Circ 570’s”

“Bulletproof your Portfolio”

1. I thank you sooo much for your advivce with the ’secured investment contracts”. Soon after I read their article, I jumped online to find out more information. You did an wonderful job of breaking the article down into manageble pieces to understand.

   [Reply]

   

   Lloyd Reply:
   June 28th, 2008 at 2:30 pm

   Gumshoe, you never cease to amaze me on your ability to rapidly investigate and figure the scoop on teaser email offerings from Investment Newsletters and advisors. Thanks for saving me the time and money on trying out several offerings in the last month alone including the teaser email I received this morning from Stansberry & associates “True Income”. These emails are so misleading. I have tried Porters stuff in the past, and have lost money on everyone one of them. I unsubscribed from all of Stansberrys email services, but the “True Wealth” email came in an advertisement in the “Smart Profits Report” from Mt.Vernon Research. Sneaky.

   Thanks again. Your serviceis priceless!

   [Reply]

   Posted by steven | June 16, 2008, 11:15 pm

2. An excellent breakdown of what lies behind the perhaps ‘too good to be true’ returns on Secured Investment Contracts. Realistic comment without being unduly negative.

   [Reply]

   Posted by Nick | June 17, 2008, 6:32 am

3. Thanks Gumshoe for saving me the time to investigate these junk bonds. A bit too risky for me, like you I am going to stick to stocks. I was planning on plunking down the $1200 membership fee, then applying for the refund within 90 days. I have done this many times with the various news letters and have come away with a lot of profitable trades.
   Thanks again. I love you service!

   [Reply]

   Posted by Mark Wilgus | June 17, 2008, 10:31 am

4. Thanks for a great breakdown of the “to good to be true” teaser.. You always get right to the heart of these things. I appreciate your knowledge and I greatly appreciate your articles!

   [Reply]

   Posted by Pamela | June 17, 2008, 11:39 am

5. Wow…you’re the man. Great explanation!

   [Reply]

   Posted by Adam | June 17, 2008, 12:56 pm

6. Thanks for your analysis. There’s still no such thing as a free lunch and still no substitute for research.

   [Reply]

   Posted by Linda | June 17, 2008, 1:01 pm

7. Great job dissecting this trader trap. you are cryptonite to these copywriter stars….Wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t start using your work in their training programs as “Obstacles to overcome”…or “How to avoid detection by Gumshoe” …please don’t stop…you are manna on the internet desert of these vampire copywriters.

   [Reply]

   Posted by w maddox | June 17, 2008, 1:27 pm

8. Your best article yet, well done!

   [Reply]

   Posted by Edmund broooke | June 17, 2008, 1:35 pm

9. Thanks Gumshoe for another great, honest analysis. I like that you don’t try to be an expert and admit where you could be wrong or where you don’t know some details.

   I was really interested in this and I would still like more information if anyone decides to try the service. Like you said, maybe the S&A analyst has a way to reduce the risk or evaluate things differently. But, I’ve never been interested in buying bonds and especially, really junky bonds. I would be worried about dealing with bankrupt companies and hoping that things turn out good.

   [Reply]

   Posted by Stan | June 17, 2008, 1:57 pm

10. This was EXACTLY the information that I was seeking on the “Secured Investment Contracts” A clear case of “too good to be true”! Thanks for saving me hours to unpack their information and for your evenhanded approach to explaining what this really was.

    [Reply]

    Posted by Ron | June 17, 2008, 2:15 pm

11. EXCELLENT REPORT. ALMOST A SEMINAR IN EVALUATING THESE TEASERS. GREATLY APPRECIATE YOUR INSIGHT.

    [Reply]

    Posted by Raymond Finberg | June 17, 2008, 2:18 pm

12. This analysis alone is worth the price of a year’s subscription to the Gumshoe. If only such clarity and detail were available from financial intermediaries (such as mortgage brokers….)! Many thanks.

    [Reply]

    Posted by Roger | June 17, 2008, 4:09 pm

13. Great job, Mr. ‘Shoe! To illustrate how even (fairly) conservative investors such as myself can be burned by far less than “junk” bonds, I’ll tell you my most recent (and last!) corp. bond experience. Several years ago — prior to their eventual bankruptcy, which wasn’t even contemplated then (nor had their debt been downgraded much, if at all)– Delta, my home town airline (so I thought I had pretty good info) had some outstanding debt with market beating yields (to maturity).

    I bought a couple different issues thinking Delta could/would fly through the minor turbulance (pun intended). While I made good on the first one (shorter time to maturity) and earned a decent 7.00% or so, the relatively unexpected (back then at least) jump in fuel prices and some management issues severely impacted Delta’s financial condition. I ended up sweating things out for the last year of my other holding (7.75%, I think), hoping to beat bankruptcy to the maturity date. You guessed it: I missed it by TWO months!

    After the proceedings, we bond holders ended up with about 60 cents on the dollar (my memory isn’t all that great) — in the form of “new” Delta stock (common shareholders of previous “old” stock got zip!). Thank goodness I pretty much immediately sold that to end my saga. No more corp. bonds for me!

    [Reply]

    Posted by gpo200 | June 17, 2008, 4:24 pm

14. Are these akin to junk bonds?

    [Reply]

    

    StockGumshoe Reply:
    June 17th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

    Probably most of them of this ilk would be classified as “junk”– anything below “investment grade” that has a low rating from Moody’s, Fitch, et al is usually called “junk”, depending on your definitions. Not all corporate bonds are junk, though, many are investment grade, they just don’t typically have these kind of returns — the high rated corporate bonds typically yield not much more than a couple hundred basis points more than treasury bonds because of their perceived safety.

    [Reply]

    Posted by G IMBURG | June 17, 2008, 6:56 pm

15. Thank you for the well written report. Your work is excellent, as always!!

    [Reply]

    Posted by Yvonne Bales | June 17, 2008, 7:43 pm

16. Yes, Thank You Gumshoe for dissecting these marketing shenanigans (again).

    With reference to your comments about finding Bonds to invest in, I would note that Pimco Funds has a collection of ETF’s that ride with their Bond Mutual Funds. Easy to pick out whatever the Investor wants. KCI also has a newsletter specializing in Bonds.

    From my own perspective Pimco and KCI would appear much more desirable than most other sources or offerings of which I am aware. I own one of the Pimco ETF’s via an Oxford Club newsletter recommendation (and timing was critical for that purchase).

    [Reply]

    Posted by Wayne | June 17, 2008, 7:55 pm

17. I was contemplating asking you about “Secured Inv. Contracts”, when I found on the website that you had already answered all my questions and more, in a most enlightening fashion. Thanks.

    [Reply]

    Posted by shawn disney | June 17, 2008, 9:52 pm

18. Just back from Houston, TX & leave it to you to have a “HOT” one Travis.

    The S & A Digest has several beta testors of this new service complaining that they can’t buy most of the bonds recommended, HUH? Porter suggests using the brokerage’s bond specialist, HUH II? “Hard to trade” bonds via a specialist = high fees (comm). Then if the bond is a ticking time bomb, you’ll need the specialist to help sell the
    bond probably. Oh yes, a round lot of bonds isn’t 5 or 10, so add on the bid/ask spread you’ll be charged for an “odd lot” bond trade.

    Forgive me for saying, but these junk bonds are NOT for the typical retail investor, beware!

    [Reply]

    Posted by SageNot | June 17, 2008, 10:05 pm

19. Thank You very much!!! I just saved $1200.00 If they had said bond, they probably wouldn’t let many takers. I am so glad I checked first. Thank goodness for the Internet!!!

    [Reply]

    Posted by Lucinda | June 18, 2008, 1:46 am

20. Thanks for a great site. A relief to be able to get an impartial perspective on these “teasers”. A question: What do you think of Elliot wave as a general comment on the markets – ethical and above board, or not?
    I note your comments on this page that gumshoe does not endorse these documents.

    [Reply]

    

    StockGumshoe Reply:
    June 18th, 2008 at 10:51 am

    I do think that Elliott Wave International is ethical, and I like reading their stuff for a different perspective on trends and forecasting … I’m not certain that they’re always right, of course, or that theirs is the best forecasting system (I’m no forecaster or chart expert, myself, and don’t care to focus primarily on that stuff, but I like reading about it from them and others, and learning what I can).

    [Reply]

    Posted by Debra Oldfield | June 18, 2008, 10:32 am

21. You were correct in suggesting that two of these bonds were Tribune Co, and Rite Aid. They were the first two recomendations for Feb and March. Followed the next three months by Freescale Semiconductor, Realogy Corp and Aleris Int’l. In each instance you get all the specific information and CUSIP Number with a long detailed explanation as to why they are a safe investment in spite of the high yield. You are provide a target price and a maximum buy price. Like stocks, the prices change with time and last week these were all priced above the recommended maximum buy price except Realogy.

    I really enjoy your great service. Glad to be able to contribute. Buffalo

    [Reply]

    

    Stan Reply:
    June 21st, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    So, Buffalo, it appears that you have subscribed to this new service from S&A since you know the recommendations specifically. Are you going to stay with them? Have you made any money with them yet? Is their detailed explanation sufficient for you to give you confidence in their safety?

    [Reply]

    

    Primoz Reply:
    October 5th, 2008 at 9:18 am

    Buffalo, can you give us your reply on Stans”s questions.
    Thanks.

    [Reply]

    Posted by Buffalo | June 18, 2008, 3:42 pm

22. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Not only have you busted yet another S&A secret-secret miracle investment (like the infamous 801k that turns out to be nothing more than garden variety dividend reinvestment programs) but you have given us a wealth of invaluable information re: bonds and bond funds. Gumshoe, you are the cat’s meow!

    [Reply]

    Posted by Wendy Pierson | June 18, 2008, 3:42 pm

23. Great article gumshoe but when I got to the end of it something occurred to me, could it be that some of this junk bond debt is insured or maybe there’s a sinking fund that backs it up? If that be the case then maybe the bondholders would get 100% of their money back regardless of what happens to the company? But somebody wake me up. That can’t really be the case with the companies that were mentioned in the S & A email? Right? Maybe some of the other companies? I must be wrong? Right?

    [Reply]

    Posted by Bigdummyjoe | June 18, 2008, 4:09 pm

24. Gumshoe,

    Great Article. I’ve invested in low grade corporate bonds before and done quite well. The key is the time to maturity and the company’s cash on hand. If the time frame is short and as a previous poster said the company has a sinking fund or enough cash on hand (or other liquid assets) the risk is relatively low. Of course, as you said, the company could go bankrupt, call the bonds or various other scenarios but if the time frame is short it might be worth the risk. Especially if you do enough of them so the occasional bad one is covered by the high gains in the others.

    [Reply]

    Posted by Tim McMahon | June 19, 2008, 2:04 am

25. Yes, like so many others, I also say thanks for your straightforward analysis, honesty, and modesty. I was about to pay $1,200 to get in, which I can’t afford to loose. Thanks again.

    [Reply]

    

    StockGumshoe Reply:
    June 19th, 2008 at 12:26 pm

    Thanks Carlos — to be fair, as far as I know all of the big newsletter publishers are very good about issuing refunds as they promise (usually during an announced “money back guaranteed” period like a month or 3-6 months), so hopefully even people who end up disappointed don’t lose too much money, as long as they’re assertive enough to ask for their money back.

    Though, as we’ve discussed before in this space, people are often very reluctant to cancel orders or ask for their money back, or even sometimes to cancel recurring renewals, even if the product happens to stink. Certainly that plays into the hands of publishers, too, to some degree.

    [Reply]

    Posted by Carlos | June 19, 2008, 12:19 pm

26. Excellent article. I just got an e-mail with the ad described by you and I am glad for finding this information here.

    All the best,

    Ed Torres

    [Reply]

    Posted by Ed Torres | June 19, 2008, 3:13 pm

27. Another newsletter that analyzes bonds is “Income Securities Investor”, which is written by Richard Lehmann for Forbes. A bit pricey ($195/year) but he does provide sample portfolios and detailed analysis of Bonds, CEFs, Trusts, and Preferred shares.

    [Reply]

    

    Larry Laughlin Reply:
    February 27th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

    I have been reviewing Lehmann’s “Income Securities Investor” newsletter. Have you subscribed to it? If so, would appreciate your opinion of his recommendations.

    [Reply]

    Posted by capcdoc | June 19, 2008, 8:06 pm

28. Sometimes it’s not so easy to find an impartial & friendly view, translate seemingly difficult concepts in a lucid way…these things you do & with apparent ease. Thankyou for your efforts, you are an ‘ace in the hole’.

    [Reply]

    Posted by ShanghaiSteve | June 20, 2008, 8:44 am

29. “Shoe”- Thanks for your commentary on yet another copywriter’s magnificent spin as it was very tempting. Question: Under what circumstances would this strategy be somewhat safe and worth the risk? Can you perhaps expand on what Tim McMahon (comment 24 above)touches on as parameters that might make this strategy viable and produce significant gains as the teaser portrays? Maybe the “expert” touches on these in his recommendations and does deliver what’s promised. Any more feedback from the Beta people?

    [Reply]

    

    StockGumshoe Reply:
    June 20th, 2008 at 9:31 am

    It all depends — the same thing that would make a stock relatively safe would make a bond relatively safe, particularly their ability to run a profitable business and remain a going concern. With bonds you need to focus more on cash and other marketable assets and the position of the bond (ie, secured, unsecured, what lien it is). Most high yield bonds are high yield because the company has massive amounts of debt relative to their market cap, so you need to look at their actual assets — cash, marketable securities, real estate, and see if it’s worth enough to backstop the value of the bonds, since if the company ends up going under the thing that will matter most is what they own, and how much they can get when they sell it.

    It’s definitely true that a careful analyst who looks at this stuff should do a better job at limiting risk than an amateur, but I don’t know anything about this particular analyst (and remember, just because these are much lower profile than stocks doesn’t mean they’re unknown or undiscovered — lots of big investors like this market, even though many pension funds and similar types aren’t allowed to get into these low-rated investments, so the fact that they’re largely unknown to individual investors does not mean that it’s particularly easy to get an “information advantage” over other investors.)

    You’re lending to a company, so think like a banker and figure out whether they’re a good risk to pay you back, how far toward the back of the line of waiting creditors you’ll be if they sell their assets, and whether you’d like to own the company if they default on their loans.

    [Reply]

    Posted by docmal | June 20, 2008, 9:15 am

30. Shoe,

    Thanks for the explainations… really helps!.

    [Reply]

    Posted by EGL | June 20, 2008, 9:47 am

31. Shoe
    I found out that the real name of these secured investment contracts are Private Placement Agreements. Great Answer. I did not realize that there was so much interest in them.

    Thanks
    Mr ED

    [Reply]

    Posted by Mr Ed | June 20, 2008, 10:41 am

32. I have personal experience with these types and a 180,000 LOSS . My broker–now an EX–sold me Air canada Bonds–they were at a huge discount.Was told they had to pay LOL Will never be a fool again

    [Reply]

    Posted by Gayle | June 21, 2008, 1:26 am

33. What everybody else said!!!! Thanx again Travis!

    [Reply]

    Posted by rusty | June 21, 2008, 1:39 am

34. Your analysis on Secured Contracts was a real eye opener and saved me the $1200 investment. Someimes the guaranteed returns aren’t quite as guaranteed as it sound like.

    [Reply]

    Posted by Bob | June 24, 2008, 4:37 pm

35. Why do all these financial letters have to be so crafty at trying to tempt people to buy their service. They are all little worms! Just be honest and you will be respected. These guys send out junk all the time and totally deceive people. Very little of their advise is honest, do not trust crap like this. If their service is so great, then why the need to be a con artist? So there!…thank you gumshoe!!! P.S. Don’t buy this junk! I never would! save your money and enjoy due diligence…work for your money, so your money can work for you. G.S.

    [Reply]

    Posted by gs | June 24, 2008, 5:31 pm

36. GumShoe for FedChairman!

    [Reply]

    Posted by S L | June 25, 2008, 8:34 am

37. Interesting All around comments !! I think you should buy what you know the most about .

    [Reply]

    Posted by Tim | June 26, 2008, 1:12 pm

38. The whole idea of secured contacts does seem pretty interesting. I agree, they don’t seem as secure as they seem to be after looking into it and reading about them.

    I wonder how much money they’ll bringing in on this deal?

    [Reply]

    Posted by Sean | June 27, 2008, 11:32 am

39. GumShoe is doing a good job. In review the ad. from S&A Investment Research, I think they are misrepresenting investment. Mike Williams, CFA. is in violation of the CFA code of standard by allowing himself to be printed on the ad. that is so misleading investors.

    [Reply]

    Posted by ehc0791 | June 30, 2008, 1:37 pm

40. I was sucked in by their sales letter, too. Thanks for saving me the $1200.

    [Reply]

    Posted by Bob | June 30, 2008, 7:08 pm

41. Shoe, I have just discovered your online service via a Google search and it’s obvious that you are to investment newsletter teasers what Snopes.com is to Internet hoaxes. Thanks for providing such a great service to those of us “teaserholics” who constantly must fight the urge to take just one little sip of the next great “get-rich-quick” newsletter.

    [Reply]

    

    Susan Reply:
    July 1st, 2008 at 7:12 am

    Interesting what Rookie says in his post. I always check the veracity of “true stories” and “this could happen to you” emails sent by friends on Snopes.com, and 9 times out of 10 find they are internet hoaxes or myths. Any financial newsletter that sounds interesting (or too good to be true) I check up by reading Stock Gumshoe. Between the two sites, I feel so much less gullible now. Thanks for doing the legwork for us.

    [Reply]

    Posted by Rookie | June 30, 2008, 9:00 pm

42. If it is too good to be true, it is. If Porter could make this kind of return why would he tell you about it? He makes money on the subscriptions. Most people don’t request a refund. Many let the automatic renewals continue to be charged to their credit card. He builds and owns many large lists for E-mail solicitation. He is in the publishing business, not the investment advice business. Certainly you might be able to make money following advice from these hucksters–there are hundreds more like Porter–but you will also probably loose. As always, buyer beware.

    [Reply]

    Posted by Joe S | July 3, 2008, 6:25 pm

43. As a hardworking small businessman from The san joaquin valley (home of the NCCA CHAMPS IN BASEBALL-Fresno State Bulldogs), I truly appreciate the gumshoe for a forum to save my hard earned money from the mighty teasers of the industry. A donation is forthcoming. Thanks for all you do.

    [Reply]

    Posted by Joe Cruz | July 17, 2008, 11:22 pm

44. wow!! Am I impressed. This my first time on gumshoe and I wish I had found out about this forum before. Your article on Secured Investment Contracts was extremely interesting and to the point. Your saved me from making a $1200 mistake. Thank you!!

    [Reply]

    Posted by John B. | August 9, 2008, 12:44 pm

45. Yes, he’s still at it. I have been carpet-bombed with this “Secured Investment Contract” thing for months now, and finally decide to look into it. It took a while to get to the bottom of the story and discover the recommendations were high risk bonds or notes often issued as part of a recapitalization or restructuring. Then I wondered what the Gumshoe might have said. so I tracked down your comments.

    For a guy who “doesn’t know much about corporate bonds”, you did a fantastic job! Congratulations!

    [Reply]

    Posted by Donal McNally | August 10, 2008, 9:10 pm

46. Dear Gumshoe
    I received today an S&A 12page flyer re. Secured Investment Contracts. It seemed to be too good to be true and having read your answers etc. it seems that it is. Equally worrying is the fact that the flyer was included as a “Supplement” in a mailing of the Oxford Club Communique. I am a subscribing member of this club that I have assumed was a reputable organisation but now doubt this if they are taking money from a firm such as S&A. The Oxford Club also appears to have links with Mt. Vernon Research as mentioned by Lloyd on 28 June. In view of this I would be very grateful if you would you please give your view of the Oxford Club (assuming you know of it -105 W.Monument St,Baltimore, MD 21201).
    Thanks for your help.

    [Reply]

    

    StockGumshoe Reply:
    August 11th, 2008 at 11:23 am

    They’re all interrelated — Agora is the big publisher in the middle, and they either own or have relationships with all the other publishers you mentioned, all of which are also based quite nearby in Baltimore. Stansberry used to work for Agora and set up his own shop a while back, but Agora still owns a piece of it.

    They do cross-market to each others’ lists quite heavily. These several related companies are among the more aggressive marketers in the financial newsletter business, but that in itself doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re not “reputable.” All I can tell you is that over the past year or so I’ve heard from both angry and pleased subscribers from all of the publishers you mention.

    [Reply]

    

    Maryanne Huang Reply:
    November 22nd, 2008 at 5:31 pm

    Thanks Gum Shoe! Saved me the hassle of buying in to do the research and have to get a refund afterwards. My family got at least 10 emails on this last week – this cross marketing is really legalized spamming! Now only one family member consents to “email offers”. StreetAuthority’s High Yield Investing is a good newsletter. By the way, to block automated renewals, we use one-time credit cards (ie, MBNA/BA ShopSafe)

    [Reply]

    Posted by David Whiffen | August 11, 2008, 11:14 am

47. Thank you, thank you!!!
    This is my first look at your website. I find it very informative and enlightening. You are to be praised for spending your time and energy sharing your knowledge of the investment world. And, exposing some of the questionable things that go on in the world of big bucks. Thanks again.
    I receive many of Stanberry’s advertising hype emails and they always give some exotic name and description to their investment vehicles and newsletters. I agree with gs,s reply dated June 24th. Just be up front about what your newsletter is about and is recommending. Of course, then there wouldn’t be “the big secret” to making easy money.
    I will have a different perspective on their hype in the future.

    [Reply]

    Posted by Harlan A | August 23, 2008, 5:42 pm

48. Amazing I read the letter twice, turned around typed in the lead and there you are cutting through the haze. Your expertise is a real service to those of us who wonder about the future and are bombarded by expert opinions and opportunities. I really wonder how the money managers for Harvard, Yale and other institutions do get outsized returns year after year.

    [Reply]

    Posted by Harris Silverman | September 1, 2008, 4:08 pm

49. Jesus is coming soon. All liars will face their Judge. As, of course, we all will.

    [Reply]

    

    Rich Keal Reply:
    September 23rd, 2008 at 5:39 am

    Finally someone is at the core of all this meltdown
    Lies, Lies, Lies! It is sickening that how we make our money does not matter anymore. I don’t know when Jesus is coming but I hope it would be sooner than later. Read Becoming your own Banker off my site at genwealth dot net

    [Reply]

    Posted by Robert G. Gibson | September 7, 2008, 10:26 pm

50. My question is “Can a South African buy Treasury Bonds or Corporate Bonds or even Stocks & Shares in American companies?

    [Reply]

    

    ECOPUNDIT Reply:
    September 23rd, 2008 at 7:19 am

    YES.
    there are no legal barriers to your investing in US companies … but I would wonder a bit about why you would want to do so at this time!!

    [Reply]

    Posted by Bobby | September 19, 2008, 1:20 am

51. I received another of their “teaser” reports, which spoke of oil and natural gas exploration in the Marcellus Range in the upper Appallacian mountains in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, etc. Any take on that?

    [Reply]

    Posted by Carolann Fritz | September 21, 2008, 1:04 am

52. Thank You very much for your service! Your candid ability to analyze and explain these “teaser” ads
    has helped me tremendously!

    [Reply]

    Posted by Lorenzo | September 21, 2008, 7:49 am

53. Hello I have received from Stansberry this service called “Market Commission” “Beginning right now, you could begin pocketing
    hundreds of dollars in guaranteed commissions
    on any one of 3,500 publicly traded stocks” Do you know what is that about thanks!!

    [Reply]

    Posted by mauro K | September 21, 2008, 8:48 pm

54. First time here – found you at the top of the Google list. Great analysis! One further observation: the market is pretty good at calculating risk-adjusted returns. If there really is a return “too good to be true,” the real “insiders” will catch it and take advantage of it and it will revert to the correct return. Subscribers to the advisory letter will think they are getting a great return, but in fact it will be the appropriate return for the great risk they are taking. In reality, they will be taking on far more risk than they understand.

    Someone mentioned subscribers have difficulty buying the bonds. Some of the companies listed in the ad are “pink sheet” stocks – not listed on any exchange, but only privately by a few brokers. The stocks are illiquid and prices manipulated. What do you think happens with the bonds?

    [Reply]

    Posted by Ken D | September 24, 2008, 1:09 am

55. Thanks for showing the “Baddies” out. There are alot of them running around, and greedy guys and gals will burn their fingers, and money. Be wise before you invest.

    [Reply]

    Posted by Piere Pienaar | September 24, 2008, 2:27 am

56. Thank You, I have given this a lot of thought and almost went for the “Bait”. ON Secured Investment Contracts. Your Rewards will grow with time.Doing something for the Little Guy, only proves you are a true American. Thanks again the report it was “GREAT”.

    [Reply]

    Posted by Al Smith | October 4, 2008, 9:04 pm

57. I, too, am a first-timer to this site, led by the Great Guide Google to the Great Gumshoe. Thanks for a nifty piece of writing and a most helpful bunch of caveats on “Secured Investment Contracts.” Admirably cautious and fair-minded, too, in contrast to a few of the comments in reply. Let’s be fair, folks; under normal circumstances, and assuming that the resident expert knows his onions, one COULD come out ahead after an average run of these deals. But with banks and companies going belly-up at the drop of a hat, these are anything but normal circumstances. I agree wholeheartedly that it’s tedious and dispiriting to have to skim through pages of repetitious hype to get to the nuts-and-bolts paragraph in any of these teaser mailings; I wonder more people don’t dismiss them all automatically as scams, and serve them right. But it’s axiomatic to advertisers that the plain unvarnished truth doesn’t sell. Why does cheap gas have to cost $3.99 and 9/10 instead of $4.00?

    [Reply]

    Posted by JRP | October 7, 2008, 4:41 pm

58. Gumshoe,Man,you just saved be a bejizzle o benjemins.

    [Reply]

    Posted by Jakester | November 9, 2008, 8:27 pm

59. Gumshoe, that article was the bomb and you nailed it. I work in that hole they call Vertis and I wouldn’t wipe my backside with the checks they give us. What loonie tries to sell people stuff by using Vertis as an example. They don’t even give me a chance to wipe my heads down on splices. The lunch coupons are dated and you don’t even want to eat in the cafe. I cant for the life of me figure out why so many people are beating the doors down to get a job there. Standing on your feet for 12 hours and dealing with cambodian derelicts is not my cup of tea. GREAT ARTICLE, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!!!!

    [Reply]

    Posted by SneakySchlong | November 9, 2008, 8:35 pm

60. Hey Gum Dont listen to that Sneaky Guy I work @ Vertis and although it is true the lunch coupons are a joke them cambodians are off the hook. I see some really nice changes for the PA plant since they just gave an important Job to Marcel Marcel. YES WE CAN ! I think Vertis is a great place to invest money and if you want i can draw you a chart , Sheesh.

    [Reply]

    Posted by Dale | November 9, 2008, 8:45 pm

61. Gumshoe,

    Thanks for saving me 1200USD…Had considered this but backed off after researching the 801K deal..looked up companies on that using Ask.com…for higher rates on corporate CD’s that are unsecured (what’s risk free?!) try Sten Corporation (real estate) and Zanett Corporation (IT).

    good investment luck to all

    robert

    [Reply]

    Posted by robert | November 22, 2008, 1:19 pm

62. I’m still amazed that people bought into these investments expecting to really see the % returned they promised.

    [Reply]

    Posted by Secured | March 27, 2009, 11:19 am